Interesting how the WHO thinks that eating red meat is more dangerous than lead exposure or inhaling fumes from a gasoline engine and is equally as dangerous as DDT. I'm sure the WHO will not mind us eating bugs though
Once again the WHO is showing us to be a group of activists and not science driven in the least
It is interesting to see the categorization. I mean, even if night shift work was associated with increased cancer risk it seems a bit weird to include it among environmental factors. I'm curious if the red meat was a lumping of regular, unprocessed red meat with cured meats.
Good question. I'd still rather take my chances with processed, cured meats than DDT or inhaling gasoline fumes. As well, a lot of the nutrition studies they do are pretty sketchy. They can torture the data enough to make them say whatever ideological conclusion they want to. I have my doubts that cured meat is all that bad for us, provided it is not loaded with sugar or corn syrup
The culprits in processed meats tend to point towards nitrates and nitrites, which on the surface don't seem like serious carcinogens to me. Some of this information also seems rather controversial when it comes to a link with cancer. I haven't looked into it but it seemed like a lot of histrionics. I'd have to look deeper into it and see.
We like to joke around about mRNA, but keep in mind that we can't just throw mRNA into anything. It is, after all, a molecule with various properties, and so you can't add mRNA as a sweetener if mRNA wasn't, well, sweet. We have to consider the chemical properties when we look at how these molecules are used rather than just throw around the term mRNA indiscriminately.
How are allulose and stevia? The latest energy drink to hit the market where I live is sweetened with those and has no caffeine. Certainly seems far less toxic than the rest.
I haven't checked other sweeteners since sucralose and aspartame were the main ones in question. Stevia is plant-derived, so one may argue that it may be better, but plant-derived compounds can also be toxic. Weirdly, I put stevia and cancer into a search engine and there were several articles inferring a possible anticancer action of steviol, so it may be worth looking into a bit.
Update (drinkupdate.com) is the first energy drink to use the metabolite from caffeine called paraxanthine, so you get the energy and the focus without the high toxicity of the other parts of caffeine. It's the wildest thing. They were smart to go with allulose and stevia.
Interesting how the WHO thinks that eating red meat is more dangerous than lead exposure or inhaling fumes from a gasoline engine and is equally as dangerous as DDT. I'm sure the WHO will not mind us eating bugs though
Once again the WHO is showing us to be a group of activists and not science driven in the least
It is interesting to see the categorization. I mean, even if night shift work was associated with increased cancer risk it seems a bit weird to include it among environmental factors. I'm curious if the red meat was a lumping of regular, unprocessed red meat with cured meats.
Good question. I'd still rather take my chances with processed, cured meats than DDT or inhaling gasoline fumes. As well, a lot of the nutrition studies they do are pretty sketchy. They can torture the data enough to make them say whatever ideological conclusion they want to. I have my doubts that cured meat is all that bad for us, provided it is not loaded with sugar or corn syrup
The culprits in processed meats tend to point towards nitrates and nitrites, which on the surface don't seem like serious carcinogens to me. Some of this information also seems rather controversial when it comes to a link with cancer. I haven't looked into it but it seemed like a lot of histrionics. I'd have to look deeper into it and see.
"" it seemed like a lot of histrionics.""
That's my take as well. There is a group of anti-meat activists who spend a lot of time concocting ways to do shady studies that make meat look bad.
I remember when the media went all wild with concern that saccharine would cause cancer, right before they introduced aspartame.
This probably means they’ve cooked up another chemical sweetener that’s coming out. Prolly mRNA. 🙄
We like to joke around about mRNA, but keep in mind that we can't just throw mRNA into anything. It is, after all, a molecule with various properties, and so you can't add mRNA as a sweetener if mRNA wasn't, well, sweet. We have to consider the chemical properties when we look at how these molecules are used rather than just throw around the term mRNA indiscriminately.
How are allulose and stevia? The latest energy drink to hit the market where I live is sweetened with those and has no caffeine. Certainly seems far less toxic than the rest.
I haven't checked other sweeteners since sucralose and aspartame were the main ones in question. Stevia is plant-derived, so one may argue that it may be better, but plant-derived compounds can also be toxic. Weirdly, I put stevia and cancer into a search engine and there were several articles inferring a possible anticancer action of steviol, so it may be worth looking into a bit.
Update (drinkupdate.com) is the first energy drink to use the metabolite from caffeine called paraxanthine, so you get the energy and the focus without the high toxicity of the other parts of caffeine. It's the wildest thing. They were smart to go with allulose and stevia.